linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 -mm] fault-injection: safer defaults, trivial optimization, cleanup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:05:57 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Don Mullis <dwm@...r.net>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Akinobu Mita <mita@...aclelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 -mm] fault-injection: safer defaults, trivial
 optimization, cleanup

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:50:45 -0800
Don Mullis <dwm@...r.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:37 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > We'd prefer one-patch-per-concept, please. This all sounds like about
> > six patches.
> 
> Understood.
> 
> > We _could_ merge this patch as-is, but it means that when this stuff
> > finally hits mainline it would go in as a nice sequence of logical patches,
> > followed by a random thing which is splattered all over all the preceding
> > patches.
> 
> Does this argue for a respin of the original patches, folding in
> content from this one, rather than splitting it into an additional six to
> be appended to the series?

If the fixes are one-patch-per-concept, and if the original patch series is
one-patch-per-concept (it is) then I can usually insert the fixups in the
right place, later fold each into its appropriate base patch and everything
lands in git squeaky-clean.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/